To get the data from NSIDC I use, I go to https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/ where the files listed below can be downloaded. They are in .csv format, i.e. immediately usable in my excel (and excel compatible) files. Daily I use file 1. and file 6.

File 1. has daily extent. The documentation in the file (also see below) confirms it includes a daily extent sheet NH-Daily-Extent. The daily data is consistently less than the 5-day extent, which is logical while extent is declining.

But there is no sign of a double-century daily loss. (see attached)

I am confused - so will rely on using one data stream for overall extent - JAXA Extent data (2 day), and NSIDC Area data for what is happening in individual seas.______________________________________________NSIDC worksheet DocumentationThe Excel workbook contains daily sea ice extent from 1979 to present, inmillions of square kilometers. The eight spreadsheets present single-day extentvalues and calculated 5-day trailing average extent values, 5-day trailingaverage anomaly, and 5-day trailing average daily change in extent for theNorthern (NH) and Southern (SH) Hemispheres. Blank cells indicate missingdata. Anomalies are compared with the 1981 to 2010 average for that date.

now you take the rest and consider what would happen if the peripherals as you say are melting

what you end up with is a new record low. one can calculate the km2 area of CAB and see.

the CAB won't melt out except that part to the south east which is also the part that is responsible for the graph line you are posting. it is kind of "exported" ice that will melt in that zone.

just compare it to greenland sea ice, almost none of it's ice is originally local ice, most of that ice has come down from the north, driven by currents to melt.

hence, whatever you want to convey, or no, let me put it this way, whatever i understand that you are trying to convey, is not the correct big picture.

someone yesterday obviously had the same impression and reacted immediately.

today i try it nicely and with reasoning.

should you think that my reasoning is wrong, don't hesitate to give it a try, but nothing general. i only want to learn where i'm wrong in case that i am, else we let it be and agree that we disagree and look what's going to happen.

now you take the rest and consider what would happen if the peripherals as you say are melting

what you end up with is a new record low. once can calculate the km2 area of CAB and see.

this part of the arctic won't melt out except that part to the south east which is the part that is responsible for the graph line you are posting. that is kind of "exported" ice that will meltin that zone.

just compare it to greenland sea ice, almost none is genuinely local ice, most of that ice has come down driven by currents to melt.

hence whatever you want to convey or no, let me put it this way, whatever i understand that you are trying to convey, is not the way a assume and what you want to tell us.

someone yesterday obviously had the same impression and reacted immediately.

today i try it nicely and with reasoning.

should you think that my reasoning is wrong, don't hesitate to give it a try but nothing general. i only want to learn where i'm wrong in case that i am, else we let it be and agree that we disagree and look what's going to happen.

I think he is a denier and you are just giving him more air by responding. The graph in the previous post shows we are two weeks ahead of any other year in terms of current core extent.

Logged

Rich

To get the data from NSIDC I use, I go to https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/sea-ice-tools/ where the files listed below can be downloaded. They are in .csv format, i.e. immediately usable in my excel (and excel compatible) files. Daily I use file 1. and file 6.

File 1. has daily extent. The documentation in the file (also see below) confirms it includes a daily extent sheet NH-Daily-Extent. The daily data is consistently less than the 5-day extent, which is logical while extent is declining.

But there is no sign of a double-century daily loss. (see attached)

I am confused - so will rely on using one data stream for overall extent - JAXA Extent data (2 day), and NSIDC Area data for what is happening in individual seas.

Quote

It is not the EXTENT numbers which are revealing the double century loss, but the AREA numbers.

Neven has corroborated here in this thread that the NSIDC area losses of the last two days total 431k. The conclusion of what that data means is up for grabs at this point.

With respect to the 125k or so loss which is being represented as coming from the Canadian Archipelago in the last few days, the mystery of the root cause remains.

It's kinda weird that these area data tables are posted here every day without fail and when something really dramatic shows up in those numbers, they are presented w/o any comment on them.

It is not the EXTENT numbers which are revealing the double century loss, but the AREA numbers.

Neven has corroborated here in this thread that the NSIDC area losses of the last two days total 431k. The conclusion of what that data means is up for grabs at this point.

With respect to the 125k or so loss which is being represented as coming from the Canadian Archipelago in the last few days, the mystery of the root cause remains.

It's kinda weird that these area data tables are posted here every day without fail and when something really dramatic shows up in those numbers, they are presented w/o any comment on them.

Rich, I think the confusion stems from what the area numbers actually represent. The satellites use microwaves to try to distinguish between ice and water.

The microwaves are pretty good at distinguishing open water from frozen ice. However, when the ice starts melting on the surface, the satellites often report open water where there is actually ice that is displaying surface melt.

If you look at the visible light images on Worldview, you will see large areas of blue ice showing up over the last few days in the CAA. The satellites are incorrectly reporting those areas as open water.

That is why Neven mentioned above that area data is not very good this time of year for identifying how much ice is present. However, it does give us a good idea of the amount of surface melt which is very important as we head into the next two months.

Alphabet Hotel, it is indeed really easy to calculate an average from daily data. What is less easy is to find individual daily datas from 5 days average. What I tried to do. I'm not mathematician, maybe there is a way to calculate it precisely ?

I think you're on the right track. When you start out you have no idea what the individual numbers are, so you have to use the average. Say the five-day average is 100. You have to assume all five days have that value. On the next day it rises to 120. You assume the oldest value (100) drops off and so the new value must be 200. If it drops to 110 the next day, the new value must be 50. Eventually you start dropping off your calculated values on the 6th day, but it should still be consistent. (The problem is it might be consistently wrong.) Your best bet might be to download the daily extent data and see if you can reverse engineer it with that method to see if it works by picking some random starting points and seeing if the numbers work out.

Rich

It is not the EXTENT numbers which are revealing the double century loss, but the AREA numbers.

Neven has corroborated here in this thread that the NSIDC area losses of the last two days total 431k. The conclusion of what that data means is up for grabs at this point.

With respect to the 125k or so loss which is being represented as coming from the Canadian Archipelago in the last few days, the mystery of the root cause remains.

It's kinda weird that these area data tables are posted here every day without fail and when something really dramatic shows up in those numbers, they are presented w/o any comment on them.

Rich, I think the confusion stems from what the area numbers actually represent. The satellites use microwaves to try to distinguish between ice and water.

The microwaves are pretty good at distinguishing open water from frozen ice. However, when the ice starts melting on the surface, the satellites often report open water where there is actually ice that is displaying surface melt.

If you look at the visible light images on Worldview, you will see large areas of blue ice showing up over the last few days in the CAA. The satellites are incorrectly reporting those areas as open water.

That is why Neven mentioned above that area data is not very good this time of year for identifying how much ice is present. However, it does give us a good idea of the amount of surface melt which is very important as we head into the next two months.

I appreciate your point Rod and understand it.

My point is this....those of us watching the weather forecast were pretty much prepared for the steep drop off in area in the Laptev / ESS / Chuchki regions because of high temperatures that had been advertised.

The rapid change in the CAA (even acknowledging that it is likely surface melt), was not foreshadowed in the melting thread.

So, agreeing with your position that this is almost certainly an indication of surface melt in the CAA....what caused it and why dudn't we see it coming as we did with the other areas??

My point is this....those of us watching the weather forecast were pretty much prepared for the steep drop off in area in the Laptev / ESS / Chuchki regions because of high temperatures that had been advertised.

The rapid change in the CAA (even acknowledging that it is likely surface melt), was not foreshadowed in the melting thread.

Good point Rich, I will try to look into what happened in the CAA and will post in the melting season thread if I find anything useful.

It is not the EXTENT numbers which are revealing the double century loss, but the AREA numbers.

Neven has corroborated here in this thread that the NSIDC area losses of the last two days total 431k. The conclusion of what that data means is up for grabs at this point.

With respect to the 125k or so loss which is being represented as coming from the Canadian Archipelago in the last few days, the mystery of the root cause remains.

It's kinda weird that these area data tables are posted here every day without fail and when something really dramatic shows up in those numbers, they are presented w/o any comment on them.

Rich, I think the confusion stems from what the area numbers actually represent. The satellites use microwaves to try to distinguish between ice and water.

The microwaves are pretty good at distinguishing open water from frozen ice. However, when the ice starts melting on the surface, the satellites often report open water where there is actually ice that is displaying surface melt.

If you look at the visible light images on Worldview, you will see large areas of blue ice showing up over the last few days in the CAA. The satellites are incorrectly reporting those areas as open water.

That is why Neven mentioned above that area data is not very good this time of year for identifying how much ice is present. However, it does give us a good idea of the amount of surface melt which is very important as we head into the next two months.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that a climate change denier is muddling up the threads with BS representations of how the melt season is progressing, cherry picking the most limited representations and then saying "oh this season is not bad at all". I think Neven should ban him as he is not here in good faith. I have been informed by other posters that he is indeed a denier who posts the same BS at other message boards.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that a climate change denier is muddling up the threads with BS representations of how the melt season is progressing, cherry picking the most limited representations and then saying "oh this season is not bad at all". I think Neven should ban him as he is not here in good faith. I have been informed by other posters that he is indeed a denier who posts the same BS at other message boards.

It amazes me how every melting season you predict a new record minimum, and when it does not happen you go silent.

Then when I post some data and claim this season 'will not end up in the bottom 3' you act like a butt hurt baby, since you cannot process any data that does not fall in line with your wish casting of a new record arctic sea ice minimum.

If you used more of your mental capacity on learning, perhaps you would understood the context of the above area conversation, which had nothing to do with my earlier post.

I think the confusion stems from the fact that a climate change denier is muddling up the threads with BS representations of how the melt season is progressing, cherry picking the most limited representations and then saying "oh this season is not bad at all". I think Neven should ban him as he is not here in good faith. I have been informed by other posters that he is indeed a denier who posts the same BS at other message boards.

It amazes me how every melting season you predict a new record minimum, and when it does not happen you go silent.

Then when I post some data and claim this season 'will not end up in the bottom 3' you act like a butt hurt baby, since you cannot process any data that does not fall in line with your wish casting of a new record arctic sea ice minimum.

If you used more of your mental capacity on learning, perhaps you would understood the context of the above area conversation, which had nothing to do with my earlier post.

I haven't predicted a new record this year, so IDK what you are talking about.

Yet you have once again regurgitated your denier talking points in this post. The disinformation campaign you have launched here is obvious.

I got this funny feeling 2019 will manage to squeeze between 2012 and 2016 on that date...

Seems that Oren will be right. We will know tomorrow. Edit: 2019 needs a drop of -91,868 km2 to become the lowest on record tomorrow or needs a drop of -27,385 km2 to become the 3rd. lowest on record.Hard to get them. Surely, Oren will be right.

- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record, 62 k > 2016, 186 k < 2018, 150 k < 2012.- Extent loss on this day 41 k, 19 k less than the average loss on this day of 60 k.- Extent loss from maximum 4.079 k, 346 k (9%) greater than the average of 3,733 k loss from maximum by this day,- On average 37.8% of the melting season done, with 93 days to average date of minimum (13 September).

The Perils of Projections.Average remaining melt would give a minimum of 4.04 million km2, 3rd lowest in the satellite record, and 0.86 million km2 above the 2012 low of 3.18 million km2. Looking at the last 5 years average remaining melt gives a result of 4.18 million km2, 4th lowest, 1.00 million km2 above 2012.

Other Stuff

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 10 days.

GFS shows temperature anomalies varying from +1.7 to +2.8. Positive anomalies spread over most of the Arctic, with high +ve anomalies at various times along the coastal fringes of Eastern and Central Siberia and the entire coastal fringe of Alaska, Canada and Greenland.

Average remaining melt data still points towards a 3rd lowest minimum well above 2012 and very close to 2nd to 5th lowest. However, only just over 1/3rd of the average melt in the season completed.

Area loss 130 k, 47 K MORE than the 2010's average loss of 83 k on this day.Total area still 3rd lowest (356 k greater than 2016, and 217 k greater than 2012).

Other StuffGFS shows temperature anomalies varying from +1.7 to +2.8. Positive anomalies spread over most of the Arctic, with high +ve anomalies at various times along the coastal fringes of Eastern and Central Siberia and the entire coastal fringe of Alaska, Canada and Greenland.

Today's 2nd "century break" daily loss the start of a major reduction in area over the next week or two?

Note that NSIDC daily extent, though still staying lowest, increased on 12 June, and that JAXA daily extent loss continued at below average.

Interesting times over the next few days?____________________________________________________________Note also that daily sea ice area loss is within the peak season, as must be 2019 to stay in contact with 2016 and 2012 (now falling over the cliff).

We humans love our thresholds and "events". We talk in decades and centuries as if it means something, but it's only because we have ten fingers.

We are having a catastrophe now and have been for some time. I suspect that the extra open ocean we had in 2012 changed things, although we will never know for sure. IMHO, so did 2016, and so will 2019, regardless of where it ends up.

When we drop below 1,000,000 km2 (there's those darn tens again), it will only be of significance to us.

We humans love our thresholds and "events". We talk in decades and centuries as if it means something, but it's only because we have ten fingers.

We are having a catastrophe now and have been for some time. I suspect that the extra open ocean we had in 2012 changed things, although we will never know for sure. IMHO, so did 2016, and so will 2019, regardless of where it ends up.

When we drop below 1,000,000 km2 (there's those darn tens again), it will only be of significance to us.

We need simple words to deal with big ideas—or to obscure them. “Global Warming” seemed simple but global averages are bigger than centuries. “Climate change,” is that my climate or yours? As I read ASIF I think “Global Energy Retention.” It keeps me wondering where and when—or if—it is going to pop up next. Energy is my sea-monster, a non-scientist trying to cope with what he does not understand. But, is my thinking on target?

When the meltwater drain through the ice, area might stage a mini-comeback for a short while, assuming that ice survives under 20+ degC winds blowing from the south.

I don't think we'll see the same kinds of extensive drains we used to; the ice is to fragmented, and not going to either empty or collect melt water consistently on more than a scale of a few hundred meters. If you look towards what's happening in the Chukchi, I think that may be an example of what it starts looking like.

For me, the question is entirely about albedo and insolation. The last few days have seen a massive surge in areas seeing melt water on the surface, and ice getting shoved around is exposing increasing areas of open water. That's the heat that will continue melt in August.

I'm watching area and CAPIE most intently right now, and watching how much insolation we're getting.

- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record, 106 k > 2016, 157 k < 2018, 16 k < 2012.- Extent GAIN on this day 15 k, different by 77 k from the average loss on this day of 62 k.- Extent loss from maximum 4.064 k, 269 k (7 %) greater than the average of 3,795 k loss from maximum by this day,- On average 38.4% of the melting season done, with 92 days to average date of minimum (13 September).

The Perils of Projections.Average remaining melt would give a minimum of 4.12 million km2, 3rd lowest in the satellite record, and 0.94 million km2 above the 2012 low of 3.18 million km2. Looking at the last 5 years average remaining melt gives a result of 4.24 million km2, 4th lowest, 1.06 million km2 above 2012.

Other Stuff

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 10 days.An increase in extent in June is rare, and none anywhere near as much as 15k has happened this century.

GFS shows temperature anomalies varying from +1.3 to +2.7. This is quite a bit cooler than previous days's forecasts. Is this the new version of GFS at work ?

High +ve anomalies at various times along the coastal fringes of Eastern and Central Siberia and the entire coastal fringe of Alaska, Canada and Greenland mixed with -ve anomalies at times especially on the American side and NE Europe.

Average remaining melt data still points towards a 3rd lowest minimum well above 2012 and very close to 2nd to 5th lowest. However, only just over 1/3rd of the average melt in the season completed.

Area loss 151 k, 61 K MORE than the 2010's average loss of 90 k on this day.Total area still 3rd lowest (234 k greater than 2016, and 234 k greater than 2012).

Other StuffGFS shows temperature anomalies varying from +1.3 to +2.7. This is quite a bit cooler than previous days's forecasts. Is this the new version of GFS at work ?

High +ve anomalies at various times along the coastal fringes of Eastern and Central Siberia and lesser +ve anomalies along the entire coastal fringe of Alaska, Canada and Greenland mixed with -ve anomalies at times especially in the CAA and NE Europe.

You don't see such a rapid change in the 5 day average loss or such high daily loss very often, though 2012 was dropping even faster. Is today's 3rd "century break" daily loss the start of a major reduction in area over the next week or two?

Note that NSIDC daily extent increased on 13 June & 12 June and is now back to 3rd lowest by a smidgeon, and that JAXA daily extent loss continued at below average until increasing by 14k.. So when looking at differences with 2012 and 2016, the area data is converging somewhat to the extent data._______________________________________________________________Sensor problems?Ice is at 2nd lowest volume (PIOMAS 31 May), and so has thinned over the years. Ice is more fractured, dispersed and more mobile with far more export into the Atlantic compared with 2018. There is a rapid increase in melt ponding over significant areas of the Arctic ice.

Is this causing greater than usual problems and errors in measurement by the various satellites' sensors? Is this the same for the sensors attempting to measure ice thickness and from that volume?

Interesting times over the next few days? I think that for myself I will only call Arctic Ice lowest when JAXA extent and NSIDC extent and NSIDC area all show it.

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 10 days.An increase in extent in June is rare, and none anywhere near as much as 15k has happened this century.

Over the past three days or so, AMSR2 Bremen images have been showing open water in the Laptev where Worldview clearly shows fast ice (very blue fast ice). It is a considerable surface area. I love AMSR2 with all my heart, but it can be fooled during the melting season if surface water appears on top of the ice, and it seems pretty certain this is the case here (Worldview optical images are hard to contradict).

So why the sudden, weird gain in extent? A rapid flash refreezing of this thin layer of surface water on the fast ice (which might occur simply if temps drop overnight below freezing and AMSR2 happens to make its pass over the Arctic then) would then make it look like there was suddenly a lot more ice on AMSR2. Recent minimum temps in parts of the Laptev have been listed as below freezing on the Climate Reanalyzer model so a brief refreeze is at least possible. I am not saying I know this is what happened, and I am certainly not saying you don't have a LOT more knowledge than me (bows humbly in presence of the master), but I would like to put forward this as a reason for the rather unexpected recent gain in extent.

Cyclones dispersing the ice (especially in the Beaufort) also play a role, I think.

...which in the foreseeable future may lead to some daily 'century extent losses', because all this dispersed ice will slowly melt, and when its concentration is below 15% all these areas will count as ice-free according to the definition of sea ice extent.

Sterks

It could also be that Kara and Barents are essentially flat, and the CAB may have an uptick in its Atlantic side and adjacent to CAA.But it’s the weather dude, the weather!We might see a total collapse and clusterf*ck in Laptev, ESS, Chukchi because of the weather, dude.Kara and Beaufort and the worst locations to suffer dispersion right now.Really bad, the weather

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 10 days.An increase in extent in June is rare, and none anywhere near as much as 15k has happened this century.

Over the past three days or so, AMSR2 Bremen images have been showing open water in the Laptev where Worldview clearly shows fast ice (very blue fast ice). It is a considerable surface area. I love AMSR2 with all my heart, but it can be fooled during the melting season if surface water appears on top of the ice, and it seems pretty certain this is the case here (Worldview optical images are hard to contradict).

So why the sudden, weird gain in extent? A rapid flash refreezing of this thin layer of surface water on the fast ice (which might occur simply if temps drop overnight below freezing and AMSR2 happens to make its pass over the Arctic then) would then make it look like there was suddenly a lot more ice on AMSR2. Recent minimum temps in parts of the Laptev have been listed as below freezing on the Climate Reanalyzer model so a brief refreeze is at least possible. I am not saying I know this is what happened, and I am certainly not saying you don't have a LOT more knowledge than me (bows humbly in presence of the master), but I would like to put forward this as a reason for the rather unexpected recent gain in extent.

Melt pond draining does this as well, which is at least part of what's going on. Reflectance drops sharply as widespread ponding takes place, rebounds as the ponds drain and then drops sharply again as the ice breaks up. Most of that fast ice is now in the draining stage, which is extraordinarily fast considering most of it was snow covered and intact just 7-10 days ago.

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 10 days.An increase in extent in June is rare, and none anywhere near as much as 15k has happened this century.

So why the sudden, weird gain in extent? A rapid flash refreezing of this thin layer of surface water on the fast ice (which might occur simply if temps drop overnight below freezing and AMSR2 happens to make its pass over the Arctic then) would then make it look like there was suddenly a lot more ice on AMSR2.

.......and I am certainly not saying you don't have a LOT more knowledge than me (bows humbly in presence of the master), but I would like to put forward this as a reason for the rather unexpected recent gain in extent.

Master? You gotta be joking. I am a total amateur with but one skill - analysis, which to be done well means systematic record-keeping, not just of numerical data, but of the technical knowledge displayed by the contributors to the forum, to which you have added another piece of the jigsaw.

Logged

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!""And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 10 days.An increase in extent in June is rare, and none anywhere near as much as 15k has happened this century.

So why the sudden, weird gain in extent? A rapid flash refreezing of this thin layer of surface water on the fast ice (which might occur simply if temps drop overnight below freezing and AMSR2 happens to make its pass over the Arctic then) would then make it look like there was suddenly a lot more ice on AMSR2.

.......and I am certainly not saying you don't have a LOT more knowledge than me (bows humbly in presence of the master), but I would like to put forward this as a reason for the rather unexpected recent gain in extent.

Master? You gotta be joking. I am a total amateur with but one skill - analysis, which to be done well means systematic record-keeping, not just of numerical data, but of the technical knowledge displayed by the contributors to the forum, to which you have added another piece of the jigsaw.

(Pagophilus looks confused, continues to bow in presence of the master).

- Extent is 3rd lowest in the satellite record, 159 k > 2016, 48 k > 2012, 105 k < 2018, .- Extent GAIN on this day 6 k, different by 69 k from the average loss on this day of 63 k.- Extent loss from maximum 4.058 k, 200 k (5 %) greater than the average of 3,858 k loss from maximum by this day,- On average 39.0% of the melting season done, with 91 days to average date of minimum (13 September).

The Perils of Projections.Average remaining melt would give a minimum of 4.19 million km2, 4th lowest in the satellite record, and 1.01 million km2 above the 2012 low of 3.18 million km2. Looking at the last 5 years average remaining melt gives a result of 4.31 million km2, 6th lowest, 1.13 million km2 above 2012.

Other Stuff

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 10 days, and is now followed by 2 days of gain. An increase in extent in June is rare, none anywhere near as much as 15k has happened this century. Two consecutive days of gain is unknown this century in June or July.

I am unwilling to show the climate reanalyzer temperature anomalies from the GFS forecasts. For example, the world anomaly is shown as between +0.1 and -0.4 over the next week or so, i.e. mostly negative compared with the 1979-2000 base used. This is an El Nino year, a very warm year. And I quote from the melting thread..Glen Koehler « Reply #1840 on: June 14, 2019, 06:27:48 PM »

Quote

To you GFS watchers (which include Climate Reanalyzer) -- note there is a significant temperature issue with the switch to new FV3 GFS model core on Tue. June 12. Be wary of temperature values until this gets cleared up. I don't know if it affects other variables.

However, the images still suggest high +ve anomalies at various times along the coastal fringes of Eastern and Central Siberia and the entire coastal fringe of Alaska, Canada and Greenland mixed with contrasting -ve anomalies at times especially on the American side in the Beaufort and CAA, and NE Europe.

Average remaining melt data still points towards minimum well above 2012 and 2nd to 5th lowest. However, only just over 1/3rd of the average melt in the season completed._____________________________________________________The NSIDC daily extent data will be interesting, especially after the big hoo-hah in the media about ice extent being lowest. This is what the NSIDC documentation about their data says..

Quote

In these tables, the number of significant figures is not a reflection of true geophysical significance. Here, the number of significant figures implies a precision for measurements of Arctic or Antarctic-wide extent that is better than about 10,000 (0.01 million) sq km, or about 0.2% of a typical 6 million sq km Arctic ice extent. However, uncertainty in daily passive microwave estimates of Arctic-wide extent due to noise in the data and sensitivity to brightness temperatures is on the order of 30,000-50,000 sq km or 0.03-0.05 million sq km (personal communication, Walt Meier 05 Oct. 2016).

We have to follow volume and area, but resisting extent with plummeting area and volume may tell another story.We have to wait for Piomas volume. DMI volume (I know it's not so reliable) is decreasing much faster than last years.

Despite the headline extent numbers being what they are, anyone who becomes complacent at this stage is not looking at the whole picture. Look at the ice that is supposed to survive the melting season, the one in the inner basin. Look at its current area.